User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 057

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

The only one that seems close to 100 is Category:Johnny Cash albums which has 81 but is erroneously included in the tracking category of 100+. Category:Buckethead albums, Category:Jandek albums, etc. I don't see any artist with more than 100 but even if there were only 100, how would a table of contents help navigate it since 200 appear on a single page? I'm just at a loss for how this can be helpful for a category that is used in the Category:Albums by artist scheme. Taking a look at that category, I'm not seeing any 100+ categories, do you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I had done a mismatch, checking for over 80, but labelling the tracking cat as over 100. Now fixed[1]; the tracking cat is now correctly labelled as Category:Albums category with over 80 pages (population: 0).

It can take 24 hours for this to purge, so let's see what the numbers are like when it's all purged.

As to what use, this isn't just "navigation"; it's a table of contents. A cat TOC doesn't just help navigate between pages; it also help navigate within a page, when the listing extends below the fold ... which is why the threshold for {{CatAutoTOC}} is less than the 200 which denotes a full page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, Again, maybe I'm dense here but I'm just not understanding the occasion where someone is using this... Maybe if someone has a media phone with KaiOS and can only display 17 lines on a web browser or something...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: it's a table of contents. Like we have in every article page with with over 3 sections, even though every article is on a single page. Or like a project page, e.g. WP:CFD/Today.

Did you read below the fold? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, Are you asking if I read the Wikipedia article on this topic? I am familiar with the concept in newspapers. We don't have tables of contents on every category so I'm asking what the function of it is here. If it's something that is meeting a need and we should have it on categories of 80+ entries, then that is a MediaWiki change that should happen. What is the problem this is solving? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: the problem is that the abysmally crude MediaWiki category software doesn't automatically add a TOC to any category, even if the category contains 5409492247492 squazillion pages. That is why editors manually add {{CatTOC}} when they think a category needs it.

The problem which {{CatAutoTOC}} solves is the need for editors to do this manually. Just place {{CatAutoTOC}} on the page (or, in most of its uses in a cat header template), and the software will then automatically add or remove the TOC as needed. It's a simple, easily deployed workaround to a failing of MediaWiki. Just shove it in the category header, then forget about it.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, And why do categories with 80 pages need a table of contents? It's all displayed on one fairly compact page? This is what I'm asking? Who needs this and what does this allow someone to do that he can't do otherwise? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: sorry, but your failure to properly read what I have written is starting to wear my patience. So I will give you one last reply:

1. once the category listings exceeds a few dozen pages, it extends below the fold. Masses of usability research shows that readers hate scrolling, so a TOC enables the reader to jump directly to the section they want. Try it on e.g. Category:1440s births (currently 115 pages).
2. on an article page, presence a TOC still displays on plenty of compact pages.
3. if like me one you are one of the minority of readers who do scroll, and you don't use the TOC, then just scroll past it.

Have a nice day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, And do you have any citation that readers are unwilling or unable to scroll half a page down? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: start with two decades of research by usability guru Jakob Nielsen, e.g. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/scrolling-and-attention/ ... which should keep you busy for a few days. To keep up-to-date subscribe to his AlertBox newsletter at https://www.nngroup.com/articles/subscribe/

Then do your own googling for other studies.

I find it exasperating to discuss things with you. Apart from your long-term reluctance to clearly communicate your own intentions or reasoning, you repeatedly fail to engage fully with replies to you, requiring lots of repetition ... and you don't do your own research. The effect is like trying to work with a student whose attention is elsewhere, or to have a phone conversation with someone who is busy watching television.

I think you've had more than enough of my time for now. I am going to leave this section open in case anyone else wants to comment, but please don't you reply again to this thread unless I ping you. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, Your problem is that I don't do research to substantiate your claims? That's not how it works. It's actually totally fair for me to ask you to show some proof of what you're claiming. I've read books and reports by Neilsen for over 20 years and so I'm willing to believe he's discussed this but I just can't recall it. If you can't actually show that this is a problem that is being solved, then that's not my fault. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again ... writing as if you have not read a singe word I have written. I have shown the problem, and I pointed to the research explaining what the problem is. Yet you reply if you can't actually show that this is a problem that is being solved, then that's not my fault. Not: your repeated failure to read and comprehend what has been written is your problem, not mine.

And I don't believe your claim that you have read books and reports by Neilsen for over 20 years. He has banged on about scrolling for years, based on extensive lab testing.

You also apparently failed to comprehend my request I am going to leave this section open in case anyone else wants to comment, but please don't you reply again to this thread unless I ping you. Since that was not clear enough, let me spell it out very clearly: STOP WASTING MY TIME. DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS THREAD UNLESS I LEAVE A MSG on YOUR TALK ASKING YOU TO POST HERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Tourist attractions in Viken (county) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I left you two messages over on the talk page for that Wiki Project. Nerd271 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd271: I have replied[2] at WT:WikiProject_Demographics#Project_revival.

In a nutshell, you are putting the cart before the horse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I specifically mentioned the front page, not the talk page. For our mutual convenience, let's keep the conversation over there. Nerd271 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did NOT specifically mention the front page. And yes, let's keep the conversation there -- so stop posting here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya BHG, I found a "prostitutes" cat for Nepal in the article alert today. Naturally, I got curious how a Nepali prostitute could have become wikipedia notable. Turns out the article is Tulasa Thapa. It seems very wrong to me to categorise someone sold into sexual slavery as a prostitute (I find that insulting to both). Is there room for distinctions like that in our cat policies, or does she become a prostitute because the article has the word, and we can do nothing about it? Thought you might know. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, @Usedtobecool ... albeit about an ugly topic.

My own initials thoughts are that anyone whose body is hired out for cash in return for sexual services is a prostitute, even if they are coerced in to doing so ... in the same way that a painter is still a painter even there is a gun to her head while she wields the brush.

It turns out that we also have Category:Victims of forced prostitution, so I added Tulasa Thapa to that. Poor woman . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the following is a personal statement, made solely to explain BHG's decisions in response to the ArbCom decision. It is not any way an attempt to open discussion on any of the issues raised.

ArbCom has finalised its decision at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. I stand by my pledges at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision#Statement_by_BHG (see box to the right), and I will observe ArbCom's restrictions for as long they apply and for as long as I continue to edit Wikipedia.

However, that continued editing will not be for long.

I accept ArbCom's decision to apply a strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and to censure me for what amounts to unparliamentary language. I accept that my use of direct language to describe the problems which I encountered was counter-productive, and I accept with regret ArbCom's decision to sanction me for that. But I have not been persuaded that I was materially wrong in identifying serious problems, which have been entrenched by ArbCom's findings.

I believe that ArbCom's decision is seriously flawed in several respects, including:

1. It wrongly dismissed evidence of misconduct by other parties, falsely representing me as the sole cause of a wider conflict.
2. It attributed fault to me for clerical tasks which I undertook in good faith, which were uncontroversial, which were supported by many other editors (including at least one admin), and which a significant minority of arbitrators recognised as such. I am very disappointed that the Arbs failed to respond to requests from me and others for even a single example of me using tools to advance my views.
   The Arbs' support of a principle of strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED may well be wise, but it does not reflect current community norms, and has been opposed in this case by many editors in good standing. As pledged, I will apply that strict interpretation in future, but I object strongly to its retrospective imposition on me personally, especially as a basis for sanctions.
   I am also concerned that it will seriously damage the community's ability to complete laborious technical tasks which require the mop, since the number of admins continues to fall.
3. It ignored all the evidence which I produced of systematic poor quality and transparency in edits which I reverted, thereby undermining both the established principle of WP:BRD and the ArbCom-created principle of WP:Fait accompli. I accept the Arbs' decision as future guidance, but I believe their interpretation to be a development of policy which failed to WP:Assume good faith, and censures me unreasonably.
4. It applied double jeopardy, explicitly reprimanding me for making my case in the course of the proceedings which were supposed to judge my case. This is a fundamental breach of natural justice, and leaves the community without a process for addressing the issues which I raised.

ArbCom decisions are not appealable. So this leaves me no possible path to remove these unwarranted slurs on my character and conduct. They will remain as "facts" for as long I remain on Wikipedia. With my good name shredded through flawed process and false "findings of fact", it is not possible for me to honourably continue as part of the Wikipedia project.

I know that this case presented ArbCom with a huge task, and I thank all the Arbs for their hard work and their sincerity. But the result is a decision that I cannot live with.

Additionally, I believe that ArbCom's decision exacerbates some systemic problems in Wikipedia, which I had hoped that it would try to help fix. I have described these problems in the proceedings, and I won't repeat them here. But I will note that first item of WP:Five pillars is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, which is a work of reference that requires scholarly rigour. Sadly, the development of policy and practice has allowed that overriding goal to be undermined by the prioritisation of secondary considerations. This decision by ArbCom exacerbates that problem.

Over the years, I have seen Wikipedia make progress on many systemic issues, so I have faith that there will eventually be progress on the systemic problems which I encountered. But their entrenchment for now places a serious barrier to editors who try to uphold quality.

So, after over 1.6 million edits in the course of over 14 years as an editor, and nearly 14 years as an admin, I will therefore wind up some incomplete tasks on my to-do list, and then leave Wikipedia. In the meantime I will also provide whatever assistance I can to other editors who would like guidance or tools for the tasks I used to perform. If you would like any pointers, please just ask.

I expect that this will take a few weeks. Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to play a part in building a unique contribution to human knowledge. For all Wikipedia's many flaws, it is overall a huge success, and hope that it will thrive, and find ways to overcome more of its systemic problems without sacrificing those who tackle them.

It has also been a great pleasure to work with so many fine editors who uphold encyclopedic principles and who apply critical thinking to their work. It is a great pity that Wikipedia does not value more highly those who use those critical skills. Instead, in practice it too often values superficiality over reason by preferring glib brevity over analysis, and prefers unchallenged assertion over actual debate. I have especially enjoyed those with whom I disagree, but who conduct a good debate; those debates are essential to any intellectual endeavour, ensuring that decisions are made by scrutiny rather than by cheerleading, and that crowdsourcing does not mean dumbing down. May the goddess continue to grant you strength to work in an environment which is increasingly biased against those who use critical thinking skills.

Please note again that this statement is intended solely as a one-off personal explanation of why I have decided that my time as editor will soon end. Please do not use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or my wider structural concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. Some time in the next few days I will post a list of the tasks which I intend to complete before leaving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change your mind BHG. But note, for a few years I was under two topic bans & then concurrently, I was Arb banned from Wikipedia for a full year & a month. Never once did I consider retirement. Not only did I return (after my ban was lifted), but I also successfully had my 2 topic-bans repealed? In these last few years, I've proven my detractors wrong & have thrived. If I could do it? so can you. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @GoodDay. But the problem is simple: sanctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with.

Life is too short to give my time to a project which has indelibly smeared me in that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been smeared in the past on Wikipedia by some editors, as having psychological problems. Apparently, they were wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: my concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body. It no longer matters whether a squillion editors agree that ArbCom erred (as indeed nearly half the Arbs believe); the smears are now Wikipedia's final word. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out & I'm still here. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BHG: GoodDay was one of the first editors I worked with when I started editing a year ago. GD offered me both instruction and encouragement. I've directly benefitted from GD's decision to continue editing post-damnatum, and I'm glad GD made that decision. I've also benefited from working with you, BHG, over the last year, as have many other editors, and as will many more editors if you stick around. No one would fault you for taking a break if you wanted to, but I hope that if you do, you'll consider coming back. I want to point out to you that FOF9 (admin tools) was 9-5-1, FOF11 (conduct during arbitration) was 8-7, and the desysop remedy was 9-6. The majorities carry under the rules, but they were slim majorities; not exactly what we'd call overwhelming consensus. Two votes is not "the project" or "the community". I think the community wants to have you as an editor and would benefit from it. So I remain optimistic that even if you step away, you will decide to come back, and I look forward to supporting your future RFA whenever that may be. (So please don't scramble your password.) Levivich 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Levivich:, both for your kind words of encouragement now and for the pleasure of working with you at various points.

But even a finding of "fact" by a majority of one has been enough to create an unappealable, unamendable, permanent statement of an unjustified slur on my work and character. I am not sticking around with my record sullied in that way, or and I am not staying in an environment which censures someone for making their case in a forum whose purpose is to hear that case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all ArbCom decisions are amendable! They can amend them as they see fit. They can restore sysop status. They can substitute my name for yours. Literally anything at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, Hawkeye7?

I have never seen a finding of fact amended, but I don't follow Arbcom closely. Can you point me to any examples of a finding of fact being amended or removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or your wider structural concerns. Just asking you to reconsider. Your work here and Wikipedia are quite a bit more than portals and ArbCom decisions. You'd be missed. Sorely. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Sluzzelin. I thought long and hard about this over the last few days, as the shape of ArbCom's decision emerged, and as the Arbs dismissed repeated pleas from other editors. But my hard-earned life experience over more than five decades is that nothing good comes from continued close involvement with people or groups who for whatever reason assert falsehood as fact, as has happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this decision. I'm just interested in making an encylopedia. As one who has been banned before, I would say stop making edits for as long as you want or as the community requires it, but also don't feel constrained from or limited in making useful edits by some kind of complex moral or philosophical reasoning. This is a for-fun volunteer website. When you want to make edits to the encylopedia, make them. When you don't, then don't. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad. As someone who was also desysopped, I feel your pain. All the best in your future endeavours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BHG, you're a peerless shining figure on here, not even slightly stained by what's just happened, at least that's my view even as someone who agrees with much of the Arbs findings. Lots would strongly support an RfA if you wanted it. This outcome is painful & I so hope before too long you come to see us less poorly than you do now, and come back to us. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks, FeydHuxtable. But false findings of fact set permanently on my record are a bright line for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. There's some small but worthwhile possibilities I'm looking into. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn. It's certainly no consolation, but this is harsh. We haven't always agreed but I am stunned to see this. I don't think we've ever seen an unproblematic admin desysopped for a handful of instances of petty incivility confined to a contentious topic area that the community has repeatedly failed to address, and that's not even mentioning that said admin did not abuse their admin tools in any way, and had sincerely acknowledged the problem and comprehensively laid out a voluntarily resolution. I really have never seen a desysop like this before. I've thoroughly read through the progression of the case and I don't get it. When the desysop was proposed in the workshop phase, it was given little consideration, with the overwhelming majority of feedback in opposition. In the proposed decision phase, you laid out a strong argument as to why a desysop, or lesser sanctions, were not necessary, in keeping with our traditional standards of voluntary resolution in lieu of preventative action. No one argued the point that a desysop made sense in the face of your attempt to diffuse the problem. No one really even argued as to why a desysop would have been actually necessary at all. Not even the supporting arbs in their voting statements. It's not like you went to unique extremes of incivility, indeed many people say far worse in heated situations, and we usually have a understanding that tempers flair sometimes because we're all human, particularly in contentious, heated environments, and sanctions in these situations are generally frowned upon. No sanction they implemented resolved an issue that you did not pledge to voluntarily resolve, and no one in any way suggested that your voluntary resolution could not be trusted. I don't see a single credible argument that you have a fundamental problem incompatible with adminship, and that you're anything other than a normal person whose temper flared in a contentious dispute. We have never desysopped over that, especially when the person is saying "my bad, I'll work on it, and it won't happen again". I really don't get it. Both at face value, and reading the documentation, the action is literally not supported by any logical justification. It's very strange and concerning. I don't understand why this happened to you, and I can't understand the mentality of the current Arbcom. On another case I have been chastising them for not taking literal straightforward admin abuse seriously, and yet here they seem to have desysopped a non-abusive admin for little to no reason whatsoever. Arbcom is supposed to be evidenced-based and logical, and it appears they are straying from that standard. I am sorry that I was not around to defend you, whether or not it would have made a difference. You will be a great loss to the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what to say in this situation, but the desysop was clearly excessive, and I am saddened by it. BD2412 T 03:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks, @BD2412, and also for your counsel along the way and for your sadly unheeded attempts to shine a light for the Arbs. But the desysop is actually the least of my concerns. I don't like it, but it might be fixable at a future RFA, and I might enjoy a period of moplessness. There can be a liberation in being free to say that a problem is beyond my pay grade.

  So if it was only that, I would probably stay. But even if there was no sanction or reprimand, I will not stay while I am misrepresented by bad judgements which have been erected in tablets of stone as "fact".

  Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very sorry to see this. Of course I hope you will reconsider at some point in the future, but all best wishes anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Desysopped? How ridiculous. All the best for whatever your plans are for the future. I rarely say this to any editor, but your contributions will be missed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Lugnuts. I have enjoyed working with you, esp the fact that you are one of those editors who can have strong disagreements on one issue and then treat the next encounter on its merits. You're a fine Wikipedian, and I hope that your skills remain valued. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you were desysopped. Let me state for the record that I think they're dead wrong on that and just as you said, think they missed the real case. Sorry this happened to you ! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Necro. Good to know that I am not alone! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO problem - hopefully, they'll come to their senses and do the right thing and resysop you ! Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC) _{PS: Yes, I changed my signature in protest} [reply]

I am sorry too to see this happening, but this is the common way that ArbCom is operating. They either remove the fuel or the oxygen, but never the heat. Unfortunately you are not the first one, and very, very unlikely to be the last one. People still keep voting for members to take their seat in this institute, and hence it continues without reform. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dirk. One of my underlying fears for the future of Wikipedia is that it is possible for any crowd-sourced project to reach a tipping point where the processes start to serve the interests of the less-talented participants rather than the project's ultimate goals. When that happens, a vicious circle begins where mediocrity can censure those who seek better, making it impossible to reverse the situation.

That's one of the reasons why I am not hanging around. I thought that the tipping point had been reached in only one backwater, but ArbCom seems to be upholding the problem rather than curing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom, for many years, has been the poster child for this. They have improved, but not enough. Their solution is almost always to remove one editor (and for years, that was by default the named editor, in this case basically: you) and they think the problem is solved. "You were mentioned by 'the community' as the main problem in the Case request, so the problem is you." At the moment a case starts, your faith is set. They are fundamentally incapable to find a root cause. The community here had a problem with what to do with portals and how. So they removed you. ArbCom is not a dispute resolution, it is a bludgeoning tool, a firing squad. And as you say, it is a vicious circle, one that started years ago. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is possible for any crowd-sourced project to reach a tipping point where the processes start to serve the interests of the less-talented participants rather than the project's ultimate goals". Oh my, that's happening right now on Stack Overflow (amongst other drama) and it's a blood bath.

I'm sorry to see you go BHG. Thank you for your efforts over the years. --kingboyk (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's quite a lot I could say, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. So I'll just say I disagree with, and am saddened by, the outcome of this case. Wikipedia will be significantly poorer without you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, Boing, both for your comments here and for the pleasure of working with you over the years.

You are wise not to comment more directly. ArbCom has made it very clear that even making a case in the course of proceedings to examine that case is verboten, so caution is needed.

I wish you and others good luck in turning the tide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sad to see this BHG, however, per my (poor) attempts to convince ArbCom to take the route that the high majority of the community favored at the previous mega-ANIs on this case (topic + i bans), a core of ArbCom was not for turning. Per the ANIs, which underlined the obvious respect for you as an admin outside of the recent portal-incivility (even by those you were uncivil to, to their credit), I never thought this was going to end up in a deysop. However, when I saw some of the Proposed FOFs (FOF #6 and FOF #9, and even FOF #11), I was concerned. Deysoping is one of the least effective ways to handle the issues raised (unless you believed FOF #9). While ADMINACCORD is important, so is a contribution history of +1 million edits in some of the more technical, and least supported, areas of Wikipedia. There were better ways to handle this, but unfortunately, there is no DRV to ArbCom. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It’s cliche, but I cannot believe this. None of it makes sense. A little human directness, in a contentious area, occasionally slipping into incivility, should not be able to lead to this. How could anyone get to this conclusion. And while it’s not a numbers game, some leeway has to be given for far over a million edits, and care for many important but often-neglected tasks. I call this irrational, self-defeating, harmful to the project - and, respectfully, seems just plain wrong. BHG has been a quiet inspiration for all these years, and this bizarre decision will not change my mind on this - but leads me, like many others, to wonder about the project. I suggest many members of ArbCom need to consider their own positions, if they can take the inputs of this case and produce such an outcome. And all this for a part of the project most readers do not seem to value or use. I could cry. Best of luck BHG!SeoR (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password... I ask of you to not do this. Please don't do something you'll regret; I'd hate to see it happen again. Feel free to leave, to take a long break, whatever- but this is not worth you losing your account. The less people we permanently lose, the better. On the topic of feeling down over the FOFs, there's been users before, like Rootology, Everyking, and Floq, who suffered some sort of blow and reprisal against them, but went on to become some of the most legendary users to edit. It's your choice, but I do not believe this is the end for you. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry to see you go. This has all been rather shocking to me. Shearonink (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My interactions with BrownHairedGirl have been limited, but always pleasant. She is somewhat of a rarity among Wikipedians—that is, she is a free and independent thinker, on most things, generally speaking, and from my limited observations of her. She does not "buy in" to the partisan-controlled narratives in much of the mass media. She does her own independent research, and makes her decisions based on that thorough research. Did she say some unsavoury things in the admittedly, very heated Portal: deletion discussions? Perhaps. But is that a de-sysop-able offence? The answer is...it depends. I think ArbCom made a huge mistake here in not looking past the supposed "evidence," and instead considering BHG's intent and the general climate of the situation. I don't think anyone can legitimately say BHG loathes Northamerica1000 or meant what she said as something that was said. Moreover, BHG makes a compelling case of potential double jeopardy, which is worthy of exploration.

BD2412 said it best here...the desysoping was excessive. Moreover, Northamerica1000 is not faultless here. And, even if they were, the dissenting arbitrators rightly, in my view, note that a two-way interaction ban would not necessarily have implied fault, but rather is an acknowledgement that their non-involvement and ignoring BHG can be seen, broadly speaking, as passive aggressive retaliatory behaviour.

I would've preferred BHG to seek a new RfA, if only as expressing the community's distaste for ArbCom's decision. A swift re-sysoping would be seen as a stunning rebuke and, to those ArbCom members who won support in the fall 2019 elections with the narrowest of margins, they are likely to end their term on ArbCom as "one-and-done" arbitrators. The general and prevailing early consensus among Wikipedians, from what I've been able to glean and gather, is that the community disapproves of this process.

For that reason, I will be semi-retiring from Wikipedia, effective at the end of this week.

Thanks,

Doug Mehus T·C 23:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am extremely saddened to see this, BrownHairedGirl. While blocking - the worst fate for a normal editor - is, as we admins are constantly reminded, supposed to be prevention rather than punishment even for the most uncivil and unruly editors, it does at least come with possibilities of appeal, but one can only wonder how in desysoping cases like this, how such an Arbcom outcome can be anything other than a pure, harsh punishment and one with no route for appeal. Busy admins walk on precarious ground and will automatically accumulate enemies and vindictiveness - even among sitting arbitrators so it's hardly surprising that so few users are prepared to run for office, and why it has become a trend for so many to voluntarily lay down their tools. Swarm and Beetstra put it well, and while my efforts for Wikipedia are paltry compared to yours, it looks almost as if the community is looking for reasons to rid the project of older, long-term productive admins and I may well therefore be the next admin to suffer a similar fate. Arbcom is prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner, they appear to take the witness evidence on face value so I'm not encouraged to even put up any defence. Like others here, I thank you enormously for all you have done for this great knowledge base. It will be a long time before anyone else can match your contribution to it - if anyone ever does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BHG, you asked above about FoFs being modified. I know of one precedent, the Matthew Hoffman case. The case was decided in February 2008, modified by motion in December 2008, and finally overturned by a motion in June 2009. This motion explicitly stated that the adverse findings related to the sanctioned editor were nullified and ArbCom offered an apology both to the editor and the community. No other examples of overturned cases or modifications of findings after a decision is posted come to mind for me (as opposed to removing sanctions, which is a regular occurrence), though there may be other examples. NYB probably has the best knowledge of prior cases and ArbCom actions, FYI. But, Hawkeye is correct that they have the power to modify findings by motion and there was at least one example where a dreadfully unfair decision and injustice was corrected. EdChem (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this EdChem. This is what I was looking into per my comment above – you've saved myself & probably others much time digging this out. If BHG wishes to proceed with an appeal, these are possibly the next steps:

1) Clarify which FoF BHG needs changed.

2) See who is available to help her with this. ( This is too important not to at least ask some of the big name & wisest editors like Iridescent & JHochman, IMO.)

3)Ask if BHG wants to contribute to the wording, or if she'd want to leave it in our hands. (BHG would likely at least have to sign the appeal though.)

Depending on the answers to 1) & 3) we should probably ask at least one of the Arbs to clear if its ok for BHG to discuss these matters on a sub page in her user space. For now, I think it's safe though for her to answer a simple yes/no question about 1).

@BHG, would it be sufficient if we got just 'conduct during arbitration' & 'used administrator tools' struck as FoF? (PS -if your answer is 'No', I'll bow out of this process & leave it to others who seem more completely aligned with your PoV on this, like EdChem. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable and any other users considering helping BHG to consider an appeal, I'd like to offer a few thoughts:

1. The Matthew Hoffman (MH) case took 16 months to finally be overturned.
2. Arbitators who participated in a case can be unwilling to spend much time reviewing whether there was a mistake when they already have a view that they did not, which is an understandable human failing. It's one reason that a review / appeal generally goes before a different panel.
3. The MH case spanned two Committees as it started in December 2007 and some of the concerns related to the changeover. That is not the situation here.
4. The MH case was initiated by a member of ArbCom, who recused but continued to monitor the mailing list (I know this for certain as that arbitrator replied to an email that I sent to the list about the case). ArbCom procedures should now prevent such behaviour and in any case I know of no comparable issue in the BHG case. That recused Arbitrator's actions prior to the case were also problematic but went unexamined by ArbCom.
5. In the MH case, a non-recused Arbitrator proposed and voted on adverse findings and a desysop motion within 13 hours of the case opening. This was about 7 hours after the targeted sysop had posted to the evidence page that they had exams in a week and was unlikely to have time to look back at a two-month-old block until they were done. This kind of prejudging of a case and apparent bias was ultimately viewed as an irregularity in process but was actually evidence that the decision was unfair (in my opinion).

My point is that getting ArbCom to agree to modify its original decision is difficult and time-consuming, even when there are issues that seem like obvious problems to outsiders. The situation is comparable to the one faced by a wrongly-blocked editor. Arguing the block was wrong is generally pointless, but arguing it is no longer necessary (even if the editor believes that it never was) is often effective. With ArbCom, eidence of a restriction no longer being needed is more persuasive that arguing it was never needed (which is easily taken as IDHT). BHG, it might be easier to ask for modifications of findings that you could accept as balanced. For example, ask to change:

8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log)

to something like:

8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log) In some cases, after an MfD that BHG had started was closed, she implemented the consensus decision at the request of the closer (as proper deletion of portals can be complicated). The Committee notes that some of these actions can be interpreted as technical violations of the WP:INVOLVED policy, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.

assuming this is accurate. Another wording might be: The Committee is divided on whether or not such actions fit within the "routine maintenance" exception to the policy against administrators using their tools in situations in which they are involved, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.

Equally, perhaps you could ask for a modification of:

10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. (BrownHairedGirl's talk page, talk page for main case page)

to something more like:

10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. In a subsequent post at BrownHairedGirl's talk page(link), BHG (appropriately) confirmed that she was not permitted to discuss deletions of Portals. However, she then linked to an earlier comment that she had made in an ongoing Portal MfD and then indicated the outcome she saw as correct. This addition was inconsistent with the injunction. BrownHairedGirl also made comment(s) (link(s)) on arbitration case talk pages in which she argued her position with insults and by belittling other parties in the case. Greater than normal freedom is given to editors making a case before ArbCom but parties are also expected to maintain decorum. Casting aspersions or making ad hominem comments does not advance an argument and may reflect adversely on the commenter's adherence to Wikipedia's fourth pillar.

BHG, would changes along these lines be ones that you see as more fair / balanced / accurate? EdChem (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks, EdChem for all the effort and thought that you are putting into this. I am very grateful.

It's late now, and I need to do some CFD tagging before I go to bed, but unlike that AWB job, I need both braincells to think carefully about these issues.

So I will reply properly tomorrow.

Again, thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: I am sorry for taking so long to reply to your kind offer. I have found myself overwhelmed by the kindness and support of so many editors, and I needed a lot of time to think about all this, much more than I thought I'd need.

Having mulled it over, I see no point in going back to ArbCom, especially not for the minor changes which you propose. Some of them would help, but others make little difference. And in any case, I don't have the stomach for it.

As a senior politician once said to me in my lobbyist days when he withdrew support for my amendments to a bill, "we've got everything out of them that we can get for now" ... and frankly, if any of the Arbs was wiling to abandon the follies which led to that decision, we'd have heard from them by now. Since the leopard has not changed its spots, I see no point in wasting more time on them.

Thanks again for all the time you put into exploring the options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

spirale of justice

• song without words, and yes, I assume you acted in good faith --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We have never interacted (to my memory, but it may be flawed), so you can take or leave my comments as you wish. Like everyone else commenting here, I find it sad that a valuable contributor, to what is an important endeavor, decides to give it up. However, even if I knew you much better I would not persuade you to stay. We are volunteers, we need to get something back from the time we commit. If you feel insulted, or disparaged for your work, then why commit your time? You'll be happier elsewhere and I wish you all the best. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The desysop makes no sense and it's something I don't at all agree with, I know we've had our differences in the past but you're a great editor and was a great admin and it's sad not only to see you desyopped but also seeing you leave, I wish you all the very best and hope one day you pop your head back here!, Take care BHG and my best wishes for the future, Thanks, Dave /// –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry to hear that you are thinking about retiring from Wikipedia; we haven't interacted much, but we did have some fruitful discussions about list-making at WiR a little while ago and your name often crops up in subject areas I edit. I just wanted to thank you for everything you've done for this project, and wish you all the best for the future if you do decide to leave. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• There has been so much discussion on the slowing rate of sysop appointments. And so little discussion on retaining sysops. How much work is necessary to develop a new Wikipedia editor into a mature administrator? In this era of alternative fact, rampant promotionalism, and attacks on social order, Wikipedia needs administrators that can function for years at the level of BrownHairedGirl. This desysop decision was not wise, nor in the best interest of the project. Arbcom should revisit their decision. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I mostly lurk and so never got involved in Portal discussions myself, but I appreciated your efforts to clean up the namespace. This Arbcom result is very disappointing. Philbert^2.71828 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's also my understanding that ARBCOM decisions can be directly appealed to Jimbo, I've seen it recently a couple of months ago. He declined the appeal, but you can always try. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm late to the party, but here are some thoughts of mine.

I hesitate to make comments relating to the arbcom case and its consequences, as you may well feel you have had far more than enough, but I really feel I have to add a few of my thoughts. For quite a while now I have thought that most of the members of the arbitration committee are fools, and your case has confirmed that belief to a large extent. (I thought of saying which of them I regard as exceptions to that generalisation, but that would turn my generic expression of contempt for an unspecified majority into personal attacks on those I didn't name as exceptions, so I'll leave it at that.) The conclusion that the abrbcom came to is absolutely absurd.

I wholeheartedly agree with the essential points of your view on "portals". I can't imagine why some editors think it worth putting their time and effort into those things instead of into useful work for the encyclopaedia. I therefore think your initial attempt to do something constructive about them was totally laudable. However, it seems to me that this whole stupid affair grew out of the fact that, when it became clear that your totally constructive and laudable attempts to deal with that crap were not going to achieve much, you allowed yourself to get sucked further and further in, instead of deciding that it wasn't worth pursuing, and walking away. Unfortunately, you got so involved that you lost your sense of proportion, and at times got carried away. Some of the things you did therefore deserve criticism, but deserving criticism for sometimes not keeping things in proportion is not the same as deserving the treatment you got. I also think that it is a gross miscarriage of justice for arbcom to present their conclusions as though you were the only person at fault. That was far from being the case. I should also say that, despite my negative comments about the arbitration committee, the vote for desysopping was only 9:6, so a very significant proportion of them (40%) had the sense to keep things in proportion. In the discussion, as you no doubt know, several of them said things to the effect that since the problems were restricted purely to the portal area there was no justification for removing your adminship, as opposed to just keeping you away from portals. I totally concur.

As for the exhortations in another section of this page to run an RfA, I am not so sure as those who have taken that line. My guess is that you've had more than enough of the whole affair, and don't have any interest in taking it even further. If you were to go for it, who knows how it would turn out? There would be many editors who, like those who have already commented on this page, would support you, and I would be among them. However, there would be those who would be against, some for stupid reasons, some for better reasons. My guess is that an RfA would succeed, but as I said, who knows? If I were in your position I don't think I would have the stomach for RfA, and I certainly shan't blame you if you don't. On the other hand I would very much like to see you take on a successful RfA, because we would regain one of the best administrators we had. I was going to say "and also because it would convey a message to arbcom", but on second thoughts it probably wouldn't: they would just think the RfA got it wrong and they were still right.

My very last comment is that I am delighted to see that so far you have continued to edit, despite what you said about leaving. See you around. JBW (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on this, BHG: "[S]anctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with. ... [M]y concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body." Worse, this generally also applies to anything WP:AE does, because AE is ArbCom's delegated enforcement squad, and ArbCom will virtually never contradict what AE admins decide (it would undermine ArbCom's precious WP:AC/DS regime), much less expunge anything that AE wiki-cops decide to lodge against you, no matter what proof you have that the claims are false. Other editors have quit over the exact same "scarlet letter" effect you are feeling (both due to ArbCom findings and AE ones) and have been doing so for nearly a decade that I know of, probably longer.

I did myself for a year, but through blind luck a third-party got ArbCom to re-examine false AE claims against me, via ARCA (despite third-parties not normally being allowed to do that), and got the accusation against me modified to no longer be a blatant lie. That was sufficient for me to come back, but the odds of anyone getting a "justice" result like this today are probably like 1% or less.  :-( ArbCom claims to be not bound by precedent but tends not to live up to this. Even when it modifies an old case page via motion, it just does strikethrough on the original nonsense and tacks on a revision, nor is there any way to get rid of the original version in the diffs, so people can always find a way to use old WP:DRAMA against you. The only salve I've found is time, and even that is not a cure. E.g., I've had that same case and related AE drama from around 2012 thrown back in my face recently (which someone claiming that me making them unhappy on some page was part of a "long-term pattern of abuse" based on ancient ArbCom crap).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I need to reply to this. I will write something in the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Years of the 20th century in the Orange Free State requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

This has suddenly started populating category redirects when the country in question subsequently changed its name - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for the ones that have so far shown up. Any idea what's causing this and how to negate it? Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup, @Timrollpickering.

I made some tweaks yesterday to Template:Year in country category/core, which may not have worked as intended. I will look into it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the the list corresponds closely with Category:Template Year in country category with newname parameter. I need to add parameter for the year when the name changed, so that it can know whether to use "Category:19Y0s in NewName" or "Category:19Y0s in OldName". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @Timrollpickering, that should all now be fixed. I have updated Template:Year in country category, so that it now takes a pair of parameters |newname= and |newsnamestart=. This allows intelligent handling of namecahnges.

I have't yet updated the documentation (because a number of other changes are underway), but the usage is fairly simple, as in these examples:

• Category:1960 in Nyasaland — {{Year in country category|Nyasaland|Africa|the British Empire|newname=Malawi|newnamestart=1964}}
• Category:1977 in Burma — {{Year in country category|Burma|Southeast Asia|newname=Myanmar|newnamestart=1989}}

Now to deal with the countries which changed their name twice in one century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Category:1930s in Siam, Category:1980s in Myanmar and Category:2010s in Eswatini (all the decades the name changed) are all stubbornly filling up. I think they're the only ones. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timrollpickering. Those are all now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Timrollpickering. I have just worked my way through North Macedonia. I think I have sorted everything, but if you spot any glitches, please let me know. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another case is Category:20th century in the Czech Republic - the correct category uses "Czech lands". Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Timrollpickering.

Actually, the correct category is Category:20th century in the Czech Republic, since that's the newer name. It's the other pages which need fixes , so I'll get onto that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current title was set by a CFD discussion some years ago. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering: I got a solution, which is to split it. Czech lands pre-split, then Czech Republic. Not perfect, but probably least worst--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These categories have just been renamed with lots of bits left behind. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timrollpickering. I will get onto it tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are to be merged. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timrollpickering, links? What merged to where, and why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 11#Fiction set in years and decades of the 10th century. Seems to have all been handled by the bot though. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timrollpickering. It was all set up to be handled by the bot; that's why I included the container cats in the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Young Deuces albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several year in Thailand category redirects have shown up on User:RussBot/category redirect log. I'm not sure what edit had caused this. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timrollpickering. Fixed[22]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for correcting the Bob Winston article; it was a misspelled mistake and I should had paid better attention. I did added the corect category to he article. My thanks and apologies - RFD 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, @RFD. Everyone makes mistakes, and this is all sorted now! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1827 debut works requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing our projects category TOCs —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, @Philoserf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I know the code your are correcting comes from the instructions related to setting up categories for the article assessment system. I read/used those instructions last month. I will try to hunt them down and update them for {{CatAutoTOC}}. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It was way deeper down the rabbit hole than I imagined. Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/impheader —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Philoserf. I fixed it[25] ... but you must have had a heck of a job to find it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, If you look in the sandbox you can see I fixed that reference too. I just didn't move it to the live template. Too inexperienced. I also raised a conversation here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Update recommendation for WPBannerMeta in case there were other related changes required. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, BTW, I have found searching with insource:/my_regex/ very helpful as I dig for understanding. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG, in an hour and 10 minutes it appears that you made in excess of 1000 edits (page 1, page 2, all with the summary "{{Category TOC}} → {{CatAutoTOC}} on categories with less than 100 pages". Could you please elaborate on this for me? I am concerned about the speed that this is going at. How many total are you foreseeing doing? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 this, my watchlist has 40 of your edits flooding in. ~riley (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, I would think reading the template doc would make everything clear. template:CatAutoTOC —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the concern is with the editing speed (frequency), not the validity of the edits themselves. ~riley (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~riley, Ah, I was saddened that we didn't have a bot doing such a repetitive task. At least we have one of the primary source templates updated so we shouldn't get here again. —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2010s Bosnia and Herzegovina television series endings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2016 disestablishments in Bosnia and Herzegovina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

Another case of a country changing its name with the category redirect getting populated by templates. I can't see what's caused this particular problem. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1803 in Great Britain. It's a lot easier when a link is included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Timrollpickering: now fixed, in this edit[26] to Template:Year in Wales header.

The problem was that the template was doing an #ifexist test for Category:1803 in Great Britain, which worked fine until that category was created as a {{Category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo BHG, Your edit to category:Stubs makes life slightly more difficult for me: I have a bookmark for Stubs beginning with "P" which I have a personal challenge of always clearing by stub-sorting. I then like to have a quick look at the rest of the category, to sort out any stubs which clearly need a DEFAULTSORT, or which have a disambiguation and might not have access through their base name title, or which look like interesting women, or suspiciously general-looking titles which might be a problem (overwriting etc) or anything else. Usually I click on "top" from the TOC line. Today I have to use "Previous page", but then see just the first couple of entries: there doesn't seem a very quick way to see the whole category listing, typically under 20 items. So for me, personally, your edit has a negative effect. Are there big benefits to it, or could you possibly revert it for the sake of one regular stub-sorter? Thanks, and stay well. PamD 08:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PamD 22:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow response, Pamd, and for not leaving a reply when I reverted[27] my edit. (It has been a day full of distractions).

After looking at it, I think that for various reasons that category is one of the rare exceptions where it's better to always have the TOC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BHG, I think there may be an issue with your edits to the Catgory TOC template code; many many cats (e.g. Category:2003 births) now have the redlinked cat Category:Template Category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 201–600 pages rather than the existing Category:Template Category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 200–599 pages. Can you look into this and fix it and any other issues that may have been created please? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian, y'know, this isn't my first rodeo: I have made about half a million edits to category pages, and built many of the cathead tenmplates.

I have built that set of tracking categories, and and now in the process of restructuring it as the process develops.

If you looked at my recent edits, you would see e.g. this[28], with edit summary "tweak cat names".

I am working through the updates, and all will be complete in about 30 minutes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This (and several related creations) seems to me to be missing the word 'sports'. However as the creator is BHG no less, perhaps I am mistaken. Oculi (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems to be {{Equestrian at the Summer Olympics}}, but I too find that usage rather odd. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, sorry for not replying sooner. I seem to have missed this one.

Fayenatic is right: it draws from the Olympic terminology. When I created the decade categories and filled in gaps, I used the existing naming convention for the year categories, e.g. Category:2015 in equestrian (created in 2014) and Category:2006 in equestrian (created in 2012).

ISTR that some of the cathead templates I created for the Olympics assume that the Olympic name for sport matches that used elsewhere in en.wp categories, but I can't recall which template(s) that applies to. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Hello, Category:2000s in Orissa, almost all categories use the spelling Odisha, including Category:2010s in Odisha. I see you created both the category and used a soft redirect at Category:2000s in Odisha. Perhaps there was ny reason to use the spelling Orissa, and not Odisha? Kindly let me know. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Titodutta

Because the state was known as Orissa until 2011, so in creating the decade categories, I used the name that was in use at the time, and created redirects from the new name. See the subcats of Category:Decades in Odisha.

That's conventional practice for categories. See e.g. Category:Decades in Eswatini, which was known as Swaziland until April 2018. Or Category:Decades in Thailand, known as Siam util 1939. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that's a point I was thinking.This makes sense, thanks for clarifying. --Titodutta (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Titodutta. It's good to check these things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city or town in County Dublin, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the notification, Rathfelder.

But as I have noted[29] at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Category:People by city or town in County Dublin, that was a very ill-considered nomination. I hope you will withdraw it, to save wasting people's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:57 beginnings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:D    DMBFFF (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my favourite cover of that song.    :D   DMBFFF (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a controversial CFD going on since 2018. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit vague, @SpinnerLaserz.

How about some links or other information which might give me some chance of identifying what you are referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake about the date and the year, the CFD happened since April 11 (this CFD needs to end as soon as possible. I don't want the CFD to become more of a drama. We tried be unbiased but no effort was made) SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserz, confusing a day and a year isn't a good start, but thanks for clearing that up.

Now, please explain on what grounds you think that CFD should be closed? I don't see any problem, but since you seem to think there is a problem, please explain it to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about background cultures of characters and we tried to debate it with unbiased reasons but no effort was made. If there is no problem regarding this, maybe explain in your thoughts on the matter. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserz, I have looked at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 11#Fictional_characters_by_descent, and don't see any "bias". I see editors who disagree with you, and who approach the issues from a different angle, which is all perfectly valid.

So it seems to me that your posting here is not about any procedural problem, but just an attempt at WP:CANVASSing. That is something which can get you into big trouble.

I also agree with User:DexDor that your very-heavily edited post timestamped 18:02, but edited repeatedly over the two hours[30] is incomprehensible. That does worry me, because you are making tons of edits to the page and still not writing coherently.

So I suggest that you should step back from that discussion. Whatever is going on, you are not expressing yourself with enough clarity to help the discussion, and continued contribution in that manner will not help your case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just popped the question on: Naming convention classes

Regards Dragon Genoa (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please check your recent edits - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2008_crimes_in_Oceania - I think you might find an odd fit there... JarrahTree 10:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! thanks for the pointer, JarrahTree.

Fixed in this edit[31]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no problems - glad you could fix it JarrahTree 10:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how has Category:Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 2,001–5,000 pages ended up inside itself? As a result, it's listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: that is because the tracking category fits its own inclusion criteria ... i.e. uses {{CatAutoTOC}}, which currently generates {{Large category TOC}} ... and since the tracking category currently contains 2,544 pages, it is tracked in Category:Template Large category TOC via CatAutoTOC on category with 2,001–5,000 pages.

So it's a rare case of accurate self-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the renamings at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Mostly_winter_sports_by_year, would it be best to create a specific template for each sport, like Template:Year in women's cricket category header?

Or is there / are you planning to make a meta template that could cover all these?

Also, what's the regex to replace all the current content using JWB, please? – Fayenatic London 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic

The sample I checked all seem to be using the abominable {{year by category}}, which I am on on a mission to eliminate.

My approach is to modify a sample category using {{Title year}}, {{Century name from title year}} etc, so that it readjusts to any year. Then if the set is big enough or has variants, I create a cat header tenmplate and apply that ... otherwise I just apply the code directly.

The trick is to keep any {{Commons category}} template. I have a setup to do that in AWB, but I'm not sure if JWB supports the more sophisticated regexes which allows that.

I have this well practised, so I suggest it would be easiest if I just do them all in AWB. Is that OK with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by all means, press on, if you have the time and inclination! (I should have asked you yesterday, when I just did the minimum on another set.[32])– Fayenatic London 18:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Fayenatic, i will do them this evening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just took a look at the luge categories to see how it's done. Looking good, except that you seem to have put them into themselves, e.g. Category:1929 in luge; maybe based on something else that had decade categories, which don't exist here. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm . Thanks, Fayenatic. Now fixed, in these edits[33]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, I think that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Mostly_winter_sports_by_year is all done now. There was more of it than expected, so I may have missed something. Please lemme know if I missed anything or screwed it up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those sets, BHG. There are six more tonight here. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fayenatic. I'm on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, that set is all done. One wee thing along the way may interest you. The Category:Australian soccer by year turned out to be complex, with variable parenting, so I made Template:YYYY in Australian soccer category header to help out.

One of the issues was that some cats are parented in a pair of season categories of the form YYY1–Y2. That was a divil to code for, so I made a special template for it; Template:Make YYYY–YY, which I think will have many other applications, especially in sport categories. It needs a sister template, Template:Split year range, which I will try to get around to later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that work! The new template has an excellent set of flexibilities built in from the start, well done. Just BC handling to go... I jest! – Fayenatic London 07:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you to watch CFDW for similar cases listed as "NO BOTS" to be cleared to their new homes. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, now that I am not an admin, I don't pay attention to WP:CFDW, since I can't edit the page. So if there's stuff there that needs work, I won't spot it unless someone pings me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, please forgive me for that slip.

If you are willing, the current sets to be updated manually are as follows:

• Category:Years in South American football to Category:South American football by year
• Category:Years in cyclo-cross to Category:Cyclo-cross by year

• Category:Years in Central American sport to Category:Central American sport by year

– Fayenatic London 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some others that you might wish to do:

• Category:Years in inline hockey to Category:Inline hockey by year
• Category:Years in men's road cycling to Category:Men's road cycling by year
• Category:Years in mountain biking to Category:Mountain biking by year
• Category:Years in road cycling to Category:Road cycling by year
• Category:Years in roller hockey to Category:Roller hockey by year
• Category:Years in rugby sevens to Category:Rugby sevens by year
• Category:Years in rugby union tournaments for clubs to Category:Rugby union tournaments for clubs by year
• Category:Years in rugby union tours to Category:Rugby union tours by year
• Category:Years in sailing to Category:Sailing by year
• Category:Years in sport wrestling to Category:Sport wrestling by year
• Category:Years in track cycling to Category:Track cycling by year
• Category:Years in youth association football to Category:Youth association football by year

– Fayenatic London 21:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fayenatic. I'm on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to help with more of these, feel free:

• Category:Women's sport by country and year to Category:Women's sport by year and country
• Category:Women's sport by country by year to Category:Women's sport by country and year
• Category:Rugby league by country and year to Category:Rugby league by year and country
• Category:Years in rugby union by country to Category:Rugby union by year and country

– Fayenatic London 21:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic: I have done Category:Rugby league by country and year to Category:Rugby league by year and country. The category page now needs moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@Fayenatic: Category:Years in rugby union by country to Category:Rugby union by year and country also done. Cat page needs moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic:

• Category:Women's sport by country and year to Category:Women's sport by year and country is done
• Category:Women's sport by country by year to Category:Women's sport by country and year can be done by the bot.

That's those last 4 all accounted for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot that I had listed one of those as "no bots" only to avoid incorrectly moving the contents twice, since that new category was also the name of an old category.

Many thanks again!

I'm just left wondering… what time zone are you in now? – Fayenatic London 08:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. All up-to-date-I-think.

Timezone? I am in HMBATCWHIIILAICDAOTTISBDST ... i.e. keeping-myself-busy-around-clock-while-Ireland-is-in-lockdown-and-I-can't-do-any-of-the-things-I-should-be-doing standard time. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG, one TV category was just renamed from Category:Television by country by year to Category:Television by country and year.

I found the helpful Template:Television by time category navigation, which links to several others "by foo by bar" that I believe should be "by foo and bar".

As they seem to be mostly your sole work, would you mind if I simply renamed them summarily and adjusted the template, under G7 / IAR? – Fayenatic London 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic

I found the speedy nom[34]. I am surprised that it was a WP:C2B. I wasn't aware of any convention either way, and I have been using "by foo by bar" because it seems to me to clearer about the order.

I agree that it would be good to standardise, but would prefer to standardise of "by foo by bar". Is there any evidence that "by foo and bar" is actually the convention? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using C2B to implement "by foo and bar" for a few years.

Category:Categories by country is probably a good place to start looking for such hierarchies. I see that Category:Sports by country and decade and Category:Sports by decade and country were set up by yourself a couple of years back. Category:Lists by topic and country is older - oh look, that's yours too!

Category: People by country and city is older, see 2008 CFD. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, yes, I switched to "by foo by bar" at some point a few years ago.

That 2008 CFD didn't discuss "by foo by bar" vs "by foo and bar". I think this needs a full CFD of a large set, or at least a discussion at WT:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've opened that up at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categories_by_this_and_that. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs on the article- Masoumeh Aghapour Alishahi, specifically with the categories. Please I need your help further on them. I want to add these templates... {{wikiproject women}}, {{wikiproject COVID-19}}, and {{wikiproject Women's health}}, but I don't know how to go about it. Although I added it on the talk page of the article, I'm not sure if this is right. Then there is this campaign to create or edit more articles during this covid-19 pandemic that was started by a Wikipedian by name Sarmad Said. So participants were advised to put the category: covid-19 challenge articles to indicate articles created within this period. That's what I was trying to do but not sure I did it right too. Please I will appreciate your assistance with doing them the right way. (Ptinphusmia (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Ptinphusmia, it help a lot if you link to the article: Aghapour Alishahi. Saves me having to search for it.

The problem is that you used the wrong capitalisation for the templates: {{WikiProject women}}, {{WikiProject COVID-19}}, and {{WikiProject Women's health}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ohh! I see now! Sorry, I didn't know that earlier. But where are the templates suppose to be placed so it will be known the article fall into those categories? (Ptinphusmia (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Ptinphusmia, put them at the very top of the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, Thank you so much for your assistance. Let me do that right away. Ptinphusmia (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, thanks for your contributions to this discussion. Thank you for being respectful during the conversation. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nintendo Switch Online games, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. czar 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]